The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters


10:05 am - December 29th 2011

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

I was taking a break from blogging but the Guardian’s front-page today has pulled me out of hibernation, albeit temporarily. I find the Guardian’s political team’s willingness to breathlessly report on whatever Policy Network say a bit annoying, especially as they go on to ignore what others are saying.

That a pamphlet from Policy Network (established by Peter Mandelson!) says that Labour should not oppose the coalition’s cuts is predictable stuff. The Black Labour pamphlet a few weeks ago pretty much said the same thing. Furthermore, this new pamhlet is full of so many bad assumptions I don’t know where to begin.

But I think a short response is necessary, as these are quite big issues.

1. Banking on core support The newspaper reports:

Gregg McClymont, the shadow pensions minister who is a former Oxford history don, writes in a new pamphlet that Labour will avoid the Tory trap only if it resists the temptation to appeal to its core supporters in the public services.

Well here is the first problem. Labour’s support at the last election was 29% – which suggests a lot of core support abandoned the party in recent years over a range of issues.

Labour did not go into the 2010 election offering to defend public services – instead they had a chancellor promising “savage” cuts and a budget outline that laid out £40bn in cuts. You can’t blame Gordon Brown alone for this.

My point is simply that the New Labour strategy of taking its core vote for granted so they could appeal to floating voters failed massively in 2010. It’s simply ridiculous to carry on pretending this strategy will work again.

2. Harking back to the past. The article adds:

In the pamphlet, Cameron’s Trap, Lessons for Labour from the 1930s and 1980s, McClymont and Jackson write that the Tories will fight hard to reprise the electoral successes of Thatcher and Baldwin. In spite of persistent high unemployment living standards rose for the majority of the population in the 1930s and 1980s. The governments of Baldwin and Thatcher delivered enough prosperity for enough of the time to retain electoral support.

This is true, but it’s a very poor guide to the future. The authors of the pamphlet seem to have done no research on the current crisis whatsoever.

As the Resolution Foundation have repeatedly pointed out, what’s different about the current slump is that it is deep enough to hit the middle-classes badly too. Their real incomes will continue to shrink or stagnate for the next decade.

Secondly, Osborne has pledged to make deeper and harsher cuts than even Thatcher had ever managed. This isn’t empty rhetoric – even Policy Exchange and IFS are saying it.

The Thatcher comparison is DEAD. People will feel the collapse in public services by 2015 and to avoid the issue is to ignore the biggest elephant in the room at the next election.

Update: Chris Brooke in the comments points out they accept differences between the 80s recessions and now. So I’m rather confused why they make the comparison.

3) Spelling out the obvious

A key element of a credible growth strategy would need to be a widely supported active industrial policy. In this way Labour can evade the trap of the ‘tax and spend’ argument of 1992, by making the key measure of governing competence the creation of new and sustainable jobs that improve living standards.

No… really? Perhaps the authors should pay closer attention to what Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have been saying for months.

This pamphlet is less a repudiation of the party’s current approach and more a plea that Labour should stop opposing the cuts. Call me crazy but I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s deep cuts will convince a significant chunk of Labour’s core vote that both parties aren’t the same.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Hi Sunny Hundal
This is really good, thanks for taking this nonsense apart in double quick time. Will definitely post a link on this on the Mambo

Excellent work!

Sunny writes: “The authors seem to be deluded in the belief that the middle classes won’t feel the cuts to public services or their stagnating incomes because this recession is the same as the 80s. It isn’t.”

One bit of evidence that the authors don’t think this is that one of them has been saying precisely the opposite on Twitter–repeatedly–over the last 12 hours or so:

@NottsProfSteve your 30s piece in my mind. Not only Cam not Baldwin but unlike 1930s those in work are now seeing living standards reduced.

@rickmuir1 ta. We found no parallel in 1930s/1980s for 2010s living standards squeeze. Austerity now squeezing middle Britain for 1st time

@PatJHennessy yes 12500 words of pol economy hardly box office! That 2010s income squeeze so much worse than 30s/80s really struck us tho.

@olafcramme Labour can win next election on growth plan. Living standards squeeze big difference between then & now: gu.com/p/34cv2/tw

@davidmartinmep thanks. We think the key difference between 30s&80s & now is the unprecedented squeeze on living standards in 2010s UK.

Rt: Interesting piece by @greggmcclymont & Ben Jackson in @guardian tomorrow: bit.ly/vk63MW> squeezed middle income stagnation key

@UnisonDave thanks. Historically unprecedented living standards squeeze will define 2015 election we think.

Why growth for squeezed middle will define next election – | Gregg McClymont and Ben Jackson gu.com/p/34bpy/tw via @guardian

@nicholaswatt @guardian growth strategy delivering for squeezed middle gives Labour good chance in 2015 given stagnating living standards.

@chrisbrooke you might be right. We think key issue at 2015 Election will be longest squeeze on living standards in modern British history.

Its worth reading the op-ed in today’s Guardian written by the authors of the report, and comparing it with today’s NY statement made by Miliband. The two are actually pretty closely aligned.

The Guardian report presents it as a split / dissent within the ranks, but the substance of what the authors are saying doesn’t seem to support the way the Guardian have spun it.

That said, Sunny’s point about this silly “musn’t lapse into a core vote strategy” meme is an entirely fair one.

Sunny Hundal

Your problem is that elections are won and lost in the middle ground – the squeezed middle if you will and these voters are simply not going to buy the Labour nonsense about cutting too fast.

As long as the official opposition is full of the same clowns who got us into this structural deficit mess they have no chance. Labour’s poll ratings are appalling.

This is a country that is conservative at it’s heart (reflected by the number of right wing newspapers) and when things are going well they will vote Labour but in times of need then it’s the tories all the way. That’s why Labours most successful leader in history, Tony Blair, courted the right and “Worcester Woman”.

Prior to the last election we were hoodwinked by the levels of the debt by the last government (look at the awful way Alistair Darling was treated by Brown’s thugs for telling the truth) and now the world is on a cost cutting drive.

It’s happening all over Europe and the sooner Labour realise they are not getting how the public feel by constantly saying it makes sense to cut out waste more slowly blah blah the sooner they may become electable again.

The polls show I’m right and you’re wrong – there is no interest in this country for socialism and there never was.

When you advocate adopting a position that no one wants, all you are doing is continuing to keep Labour in opposition….

The assumption that appeals should be to a “squeezed middle” plays to a privileged middle class who are losing very little compared to the most needy. What kind of cynicism plays to the self-pity of the relatively well off who feel hard done by because they can’t have a foreign holiday this year?

There needs to be a focus on two main areas: Attacks on welfare and the NHS, which will affect all of us at some stage whether indirectly or directly, and the false economies of the coalition that are ideological rather than pragmatic, merely using the deficit as a smokescreen.

6. Alisdair Cameron

Sunny, it’s the Guardian, where reside still too many who somehow still cling to the Blairite/new labour crap, when not tacitly endorsing the Coalition (in many ways more warmly than say, the Telegraph).
Otherwise, good takedown, as the Mandelson line really will see the ‘core’ labour vote which he thinks can be taken for granted further disappear. Why vote Labour for more of the same Tory policies?
I’m no fan of Ed Miliband (biggest saving grace being that he’s not his brother…) but he could in part redeem himself by very,very strongly fighting on public services (and welfare, but pigs will fly before Purnellism is repudiated). That would mean attacking marketisation which Mandy would hate (but so bloody what), outsourcing, back-door privatisation etc. Has Ed the backbone to do so, without hedging his bets and coming out with the usual guf about “reforms”, doing more for less, cutting waste etc? The public sector, on analysis, is both efficient and good value at delivering universal services. That’s the key: universality, over which the private sector fails time and time again, extracting huge subsidies to half-heartedly do what the public sector does as a matter of course.
Putting it bluntly, while the private sector is very good at many things, the one thing it consistently falls down on is any notion of universal provision.
If, as a society we decide that some services should be open to and equally accessible by each and every member of our society, then the private isn’t capable of delivering to all of those folk, be they the mail recipient in deepest Cornwall or in the Outer Hebrides, the patient with chronic and complex enduring needs, or the rural area missing broadband.
The choice is simple: either we collectively ensure we all get served, or it’s dog eat dog. I prefer the former,and believe that’s what labour should be shouting about with the state ensuring a minimum universal service of more than basic, indeed of good quality, paid for from taxation.
What I don’t want to see is false marketisation, paying subsidies at outrageous rates to privateers, who still then try and cherry-pick and dodge universal obligations, while simultaneously buggering up the state’s genuinely universal provision.

7. gastro george

Nice post Sunny.

The Guardian article is just another attempt by the Labour right to “frame the argument”. Or are they so stupid that they don’t realise that by talking about Ed being trapped by opposition to Tory cuts they are, in fact, making the cuts more prominent and therefore a requirement to be talked about.

The Eds have their priorities just about right – talk about growth rather than cuts. What they need to do is to convey this in a more substantial way.

@5 – Cherub

The “squeezed middle” are the people in this country who elect governments.

The people who are are supposedly suffering most with the cuts (not the greedy council leaders) don’t bother to vote.

Labour will never win a General Election with the hopeless Ed Miliband in charge anyway but to try to suggest there is some sort of underlying desire anywhere in the world for socialism, let alone in Britain, just does the government’s job for it.

The whole of Europe is shifting rightwards and the sooner Labour get that then the sooner we can have a credible opposition in this country but if anyone thinks that will occur with any of the current shadow cabinet in place they’re reaching.

A bit of apologetic humility from the party might be a start….

Chris – fair point,. I’ll amend my blog post to reflect that. But it sort of renders their main point (or at least the thrust of the Guardian article) a bit useless?

@8

The people who are are supposedly suffering most with the cuts (not the greedy council leaders) don’t bother to vote.

Well of course not, everycunt’s falling over their own feet trying to appease the ‘squeezed middle’. Those suffering the most currently get to vote for the colour rosette that the guy who will give them the shaft will wear, that’s it. So why even fucking bother?

11. Diane Abbott MP

I share Sunny’s irritation at the way the Guardian breathlessly makes any pronouncement by the Policy Network front page news. Patrick Wintour at al never seem to stop & ask themselves who do these people actually represent?
& there is nothing particulalry progressive about an organisation that is overwhelmingly white, male & has more than its fair share of recycled Blairites.
Gregg McClymont is a nice bloke & no doubt was a very pleasant Oxford don. But his pamphlet is underwhelming. Nobody disagrees with one of his main points that Labour should be talking about jobs & growth. But, as Sunny points out, Ed Milli & Ed balls are already making this point every chance they get. But the comparison with the 1930’s and the 1980’s is flawed. For one thing the reason that Thatcher was able to win elections in the nineteen eighties in the face of high unemployment etc was not due to the brilliance of Thatcher. The main reason was that in 1983 & 1987 the SDP split the non-Tory vote. Somehow the Blairites have managed to obliterate this fact from history. But, when the SDP was taking 25% of the vote & assisting the right wing media in a slanderous misrepresentation of the Labour Party, it is not suprising that Thatcher triumphed. And that does not even factor in the effect of the Falklands War. It is suprising the writers of this twenty-three page pamphlet never managed to mention the role of the SDP once. After all the chair of the Policy Network is Roger Liddle, a leading SDP cadre of the eighties. You might have thought he would recall his role in keeping Thatcher in power with pride. Or maybe not.
But one of the main messages of this pamphlet is portentous warnings against labour “falling into the trap” appealing to its supporters in the public services. Public sector union activists might be forgiven for saying “chance would be a fine thing” And Ed Milliband has indeed bent over backwards not to be seen to support striking public sector workers. But what the writers of this pamphlet forget is that public sector workers are a much bigger proportion of the electorate now than they werr in the 1930’s or even the 1980’s. Furthermore the majority of these workers are women. Even in middle class households where the head of the household is in the private sector their partner is likely to be a part-time public sector workers. So it is not clear to me why standing up for teachers, nurses & dinner ladies is as toxic as the writers seem to imagine.
& as Sunny points out ” the New Labour strategy of taking its core vote for granted so they could appeal to floating voters failed massively in 2010. It’s simply ridiculous to carry on pretending this strategy will work again”

Well said Sunny, all Motherhood and Blairite fail pie this stuff. Though isn’t this a response to the In the Black Labour pamphlet rather than beingsomething that sits alongside it?

Calling to not oppose the cuts is stupid, but to be fair to the author (Greg McClymont MP) has outlined what a strong industrial policy could look like in far more detail than Ed Miliband has. Miliband and Balls have been very light on policy detail, whereas McClymont has actually written a decent article that the Labour policy review will probably never come close to following up on.

“Germany: a banking ecology that supports the real economy”

http://www.policy-network.net/articles/4111/Germany-a-banking-ecology-that-supports-the-real-economy

It’s all well and good saying that Miliband supports an industrial policy, but at the moment it’s very difficult to say whether this is something that the left in general supports, and wishes that Miliband supported, rather than something that Ed Miliband has actually committed to in specific terms. Miliband hasn’t really said anything about what he’s going to do at all, and that’s the problem.

But yeah, generally, the criticism that everyone has picked up on, that Labour took its core support for granted, and that opposing the cuts is simply the wrong thing to do economically anyway, is absolutely right. Being “the party of tax and spend” isn’t quite as unpopular as Westminster policy wonks might like to pretend it is.

14. Tax Obesity, Not Enterprise

Diane Abbott MP @ 11:

“The main reason was that in 1983 & 1987 the SDP split the non-Tory vote… when the SDP was taking 25% of the vote…”

Not sure about that. For the purposes of argument, let’s take the average vote % by party in both elections – ie Tory 42.32%, Labour 29.19% and the SDP/Liberal’s 23.99%. You are assuming that all or most of the non-Tory vote would have voted Labour, but for the SDP. However, without the SDP, the Liberals would have still garnered plenty of votes, and those left-wing Tories who were attracted to the SDP might well have voted Tory anyway or abstained. So the Tories would probably have won both elections, particularly since the distribution of their support favoured them electorally in the 1980s.

“Patrick Wintour at al never seem to stop & ask themselves who do these people actually represent? & there is nothing particulalry progressive about an organisation that is overwhelmingly white, male & has more than its fair share of recycled Blairites.”

C’mon. What matters is the analysis, not who said it. All reports have it that Cameron believes that 2 + 2 = 4 but I can’t persuade my supermarket to reprogramme the tills at their checkouts because of that.

16. Andy Tarrant

From Sunny’s article it would appear this comments were based on the Guardian’s article. His reaction is a fair comment on that article (the Guardian presumably have their own agenda and have spun the coverage) but I don’t think it is a fair comment on the policy network document: would be interested in his reaction after his having read it. I suspect he would probably find he agrees with it.

The general point to be made is that the policy network document is primarily an historical analysis of Conservative electoral strategy and discusses the conditions under which the latter may succeed or fail. It also points out the cynicism behind the Tory construct of political economy. Worth noting that much of the press, including many of the Guardian writers, for much of 2010-11 bought the line that the coalition’s approach was “progressive”: the authors provide a robust challenge to that assumption and explain precisely why it is not intended to be “progressive”. A useful critique of the document would either to agree or disagree with their historical analysis and why it stands or falls in application to the current regime.

On his specific points:

1. The policy network document does not argue this at all.

2. The point the authors make is precisely that the “successes” of previous Conservative governments cannot be replicated in the current economic circumstances.

3. What they argue is that there is a long established historical pattern of the Conservatives trying to define economic management as solely the reduction of government spending and that Labour victories have occurred when Labour has proposed an economic alternative (government in waiting) and Labour defeats have occurred when it has primarly relied on opposing cuts (remained in opposition). The authors (although not the Guardian’s point) was that Labour cannot only rely on opposition to cuts and that because of point 2 the electorate is likely to be attracted to a positive alternative.

I read it as a historically-based deconstruction of Tory political-economy which supports what the two Ed’s are doing.

The trouble is, they look only at election strategy and not at the abandonment of Labour’s core values (and believe me, when a party founded to represent workers accepts Thatcher’s anti-union laws, something’s very wrong).

Tory troll . Anon E Mouse states:

“This is a country that is conservative at it’s heart (reflected by the number of right wing newspapers) ”

if this was true then how was it that at the last election the Conservatives failed to get a majority despite the following:

1) The near assasination of Gordon Browns character by the right wing media
2) A once in a century World Wide financial collapse,
3) Ashcrofts millions bankrolling the Tory party in the marginal constituencies
4) A Labour party that had been in power for 13 years

Face facts despite all of this over 55% of the population voted centre left.

Not a right wing country at all

You see this is what happens when Labour pander to the Right Wing agenda:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britains-poorest-hit-by-25bn-stealth-tax-6281832.html

We allow the Tories and their Lib Dem lackeys to frame the debate; they piss all over Labour and leave them with nothing to say. The Tories are carrying out an attack on progressive taxation and the Left are shit scared to say anything, lest they be seen to be ‘harming the poor’.

The Left are simply not able to get onto the attack because we are not allowed to attack the current Right Wing orthodoxy on taxation. Any mention of progressive taxation in any way, shape or form is the equivalent of repealing the anti slavery laws. We shall never call out the Lib Dems on their greatest boast, because we all know it is bullshit and we all know that they know it is bullshit, but we can never acknowledge it, because then we would have to say something deeply unpopular and truthful. The poor carry too much of the tax burden because the balance between progressive and regressive taxation is being further skewed by recent tax changes. The only way to REALLY rebalance it is not to further cut income tax, but to cut regressive taxation and move progressive tax up to compensate.

Labour collectively shit a brick when the SNP threatened to do this and they, the Lib Dems and of course the Tories shot the wacky idea down.

The Lib Dems were not to bothered about taking the ‘poor out of tax’ when it meant ACTUALLY taking the poor out of tax.
We allow the cynical Tories and the Lib Dems with a social conscience to get away with murder simply because the Left and Labour are fixed in a permanent cowardly cringe regarding tax. The Right have framed the narrative to the extent when they use ‘take the poor out of tax’ to mean income tax they get away with it. They can tell a huge whopper at any opportunity on any media panel and the Left’s or Labour’s representative on the panel has to (or can get away with) sitting on his hands, nodding sagely.

Our people are being forced to suffer service cuts to pay for rich men’s tax cuts cynically being sold to us as ‘taking the poor out of tax’ simply because we lack the will power to break ranks with the Right of the Labour Party.

I honestly wish that everyone on Labours front bench would just all fuck of and annoy other people instead. They are the most useless bunch of has beens, since Scotland’s 1986 World cup squad.

Thank you for finally spelling it out! As a member of the Labour party is was dire enough to do anything for them last time, now days not a week goes by where other Labour campaigners despair about what is being said by our leadership, some bitch that we should have made David leader, but the really hard workers are at breaking point now, they are fueled by Tory hatred than of any love for Labour. I have no idea how the leadership expect to win the next election if they don’t have that team behind them, because they are the only people who can make Labour seem at all human.

As for 1980 its if anything a guide for galvanising the base, Thatchers polls where sternly fixed at a 40% vote mark throughout her elections. The reason she won was because the left vote was split between SDLP Alliance/Lib dems and Labour. Look back at the polling records, David Owen and the gang of four were a very compelling group and closely matched Labour. But while it is terrible to see the cracking of the left under such pressure it shows that if anything a party should go all guns in for their support base, the 1979 election was down to the leadership of Labour working with private equity groups and betraying the workers.

21. Anon E Mouse

@18 – Paul G

Wearing your true New Labour credentials of smearing someone’s character who offers an opinion you disagree with let’s look at your facts.

1. Gordon Brown wasn’t elected by the Labour Party even, let alone the electorate and that’s because Labour voters like myself actually believed Tony Blair when he said he’d serve a full third term.

2. The Tories got more votes than Labour in 2010 – 10,726,614 to 8,609,527 (36.1% to 29%) – if the boundaries weren’t weighted in favour of Labour or we had PR then Labour would have been hammered.

In 2005 Labour won 35.2% of the popular vote which got them 413 seats yet the Tories got 32.4% of the vote yet only 166 seats – it isn’t fairly weighted – everyone knows that.

3. Ashcroft bankrolling the party is irrelevant – you are discussing seats and votes, not party funding. Typical Labour smearing about an individual they don’t like.

4. Labour were in for 13 years yet the previous Tory government had been in power for 18 years. What’s your point?

Ditch the tax avoiding property millionaire Ed Miliband who hasn’t done a single days work in his life and represents nobody and Labour may have a chance but it’s doubtful.

You also failed to mention the structural deficit left by Brown who claimed to have abolished “Boom and Bust” and blamed the international markets instead and the fact Miliband is less popular than Nick Clegg in two polls and Labour are tanking despite unpopular cuts proves my point.

I know that Labour love multi votes in their elections (which is the reason their leader was forced on the party against the wishes of the PLP and the ordinary members) but your arguments seem designed to help the government and I just don’t get that.

All you are doing is the usual Labour denial and doing the government’s job for them.

Well done Paul G…

I think the scored out line needs an explanation

23. Anon E Mouse

@20 – Conrad

Since I agree with your points why on earth isn’t the Labour Party listening?

@ 21. Anon E Mouse

virtually all the points you give make no sense, are you really of voting age?

Having a non-domicile personally bankroll campaigns makes no difference?

What world do you live in? In 2010 The Conservatives spent £16.6m on the general election, Labour’s expenditure was £8m. Outspent Labour by £8million but the Tories missed the open goal that was the 2010 election.

Irrelevant I hear you say, grow up and admit that Cameron has not been elected PM just like Gordon but at least his party was elected by the voters.

I suppose the giant billboards on all the main roads in my constituency made no difference at all to peoples voting intentions or the Tory phone banks that constantly phoned undecided voters and roused the Tory faithful. Do I have to explain that Advertising and funding will effect voter intentions or can you take your head out of the beano long enough to accept this well accepted fact.

YOU SAID: “Labour were in for 13 years yet the previous Tory government had been in power for 18 years. What’s your point?”

The point is in 1997 after 18 years the Tories were routed and kicked out by a Labour landslide, in 2010 David Cameron failed to get a majority, get it? Or do I need to explain that further?

Ed Milliband a tax avoider?! No change there then if if he gets elected PM or chancellor of the exchequer. Do you want me to bring up Boy Georges tax arrangements

http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2010/10/28/tax-avoidance-george-does-it-too/

The polls are irrelevant the only one that matters is the next election and Cameron will be judged on his record and Milliband will have more than enough evidence of this Tory Governments betrayal of the wishes of the public in 2010.

25. Anon E Mouse

@24 – Paul G

There you go again with your smearing regarding my age.

What does the person who funds a party have to do with the results? It is just New Labour smearing (again).

Brown, the most unpopular PM in history (certainly since 1922) was not elected by anyone – as much as I dislike Cameron he did have the balls to put himself forward for election as his party leader which is more than Brown.

(I voted Labour in that landslide election by the way and I didn’t jeer at Labour’s most successful leader at the party conference. Did you?)

The Tories got more votes than Labour and should have formed a minority government and judging by tonights poll will storm it at the next election.

As for George Osbourne tax avoiding I expect that from the Tories not from Labour the supposed party of the working man.

All you are doing with your childish tribalism is reminding everyone of the bad aspects of the Labour Party. The cheating smearing Labour Party deserved to get their second worst result in it’s history at the last election and with people like you who seem to want not to represent the wishes of the electorate – the voters – will just keep this government in power for longer.

Your name isn’t Derek Draper, Damian McBride or Liam Byrne is it by any chance?

The way you speak Paul G anyone would think Labour wasn’t resoundingly thrashed at the last election. Well done Paul G….


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    The 'Labour trap' and how Policy Network is ignoring voters http://t.co/NzIRubj6

  2. sunny hundal

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters. My response to Guardian's breathless report today > http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  3. Legal Aware

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters. My response to Guardian's breathless report today > http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  4. mark a williams

    The 'Labour trap' and how Policy Network is ignoring voters http://t.co/NzIRubj6

  5. Paul Trembath

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters. My response to Guardian's breathless report today > http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  6. David Prescott

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters. My response to Guardian's breathless report today > http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  7. Maureen Czarnecki

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/KLVJQtq9 via @libcon

  8. sunny hundal

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  9. Chris Wills

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  10. Andrew Fenlon

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters. My response to Guardian's breathless report today > http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  11. James Doran

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  12. Alex Gordon

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters http://t.co/Ci1woXwh Good piece on bankrupt, right wing, Labour Party proposals.

  13. Robert Butler

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  14. Rev Nev

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters. My response to Guardian's breathless report today > http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  15. Rikbut

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  16. lee james brown

    Good response from @sunny_hundal to Guardian's front page http://t.co/0J32WNUP. Totally wrong to counterpose public services + growth.

  17. James Doran

    Good response from @sunny_hundal to Guardian's front page http://t.co/0J32WNUP. Totally wrong to counterpose public services + growth.

  18. Patron Press - #P2

    #UK : The ‘Labour trap ’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters http://t.co/ddOZipKX

  19. Lynda Constable

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  20. Paul Trembath

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  21. Jill Hayward

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters. My response to Guardian's breathless report today > http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  22. Alex Braithwaite

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/6ixbTqC2 via @libcon

  23. Tony Dowling

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  24. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters http://t.co/O49hIg8E

  25. Patrick McGuire

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  26. Jill Hayward

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  27. Jonathan Taylor

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  28. Rick

    Good response from @sunny_hundal to Guardian's front page http://t.co/0J32WNUP. Totally wrong to counterpose public services + growth.

  29. Cllr Timothy Godfrey

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  30. James Morris

    Good response from @sunny_hundal to Guardian's front page http://t.co/0J32WNUP. Totally wrong to counterpose public services + growth.

  31. Luton NUT

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  32. Sam Browse

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  33. Lou Hart

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  34. George Czernuszka

    Good response from @sunny_hundal to Guardian's front page http://t.co/0J32WNUP. Totally wrong to counterpose public services + growth.

  35. Hussain Cheema

    I don’t see how a pledge to match Osborne’s cuts will convince Labour-leaning voters that both parties aren’t the same http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  36. Mike Smart

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/JncRjKls via @libcon

  37. Sophie Bryce

    'The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters' – http://t.co/wsNEsxki

  38. Stef

    The 'Labour trap' and how Policy Network is ignoring voters http://t.co/NzIRubj6

  39. Lucy Powell

    Labour's "trap" and how think-tanks such as Policy Network take Labour voters for granted http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  40. Stuart Rodger

    Labour's "trap" and how think-tanks such as Policy Network take Labour voters for granted http://t.co/oHyvAxKA

  41. John D Clare

    RT @libcon: The 'Labour trap' and how Policy Network is ignoring voters http://t.co/5PmaaBmV

  42. Black Triangle

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iwY7aqU4 via @libcon

  43. Virginia Moffatt

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iwY7aqU4 via @libcon

  44. DPAC

    The ‘Labour trap’ and how Policy Network is ignoring voters | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iwY7aqU4 via @libcon

  45. stefinj

    http://t.co/pYMfiw73
    LabourTory same old story

  46. An attack on the left? No, the Labour right is offering concessions | Liberal Conspiracy

    [...] and coming out of Peter Mandelson’s think-tank, has been perceived as a right-wing attack by Sunny Hundal and Eoin [...]

  47. Miliband’s trap? « Representing the Mambo

    [...] are two takes on the document (here and here) on the Liberal Conspiracy site from different sides of the debate. Neither is [...]

  48. MediaActivist » Blog Archive » How the Left Helped the Media Marginalise Miliband

    [...] Lord Sainsbury even pulled his party donations because of Ed’s leadership. Their feeding of the negative news stories about him via their think tanks was only part of the action taken to [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.